I am stupid, selfish, crazy and do not understand SCIENCE - Page 3

[peainthepod]

Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 

I agree to the extent that some people may view vaccines this way, but I  believe there are far more people who don't even research vaccines at all, assume they're completely safe, basically keep their heads in the sand, and listen to everything their doctors tell them (sheeple - no one on here of course).  These types of people believe that vaccines can do no wrong and cannot phathom for a second why someone would choose not to vaccinate, especially to keep the "herd" protected. (I really hate the word "herd" anymore.)  Those who can sit there and say they are completely safe should really do some research.. 

I try to give other people the benefit of the doubt in this area. I'm sure there are parents who don't research and just make a gut decision not to vaccinate, and I'm sure there are parents who don't research and make the popular or advised decision to vaccinate, but I try not to assume that of anyone because I don't want to resort to the sort of "You're too dumb to understand the real science or you'd do what we do!" tactic that is so commonly used against vaccine-free families.

It's definitely possible to read the same studies and books and expert opinions and form your own different conclusions and it probably happens a lot. I have to believe that most vaccinating parents did their research and just happen to disagree, which is their right. I have no problem with (civil) disagreement and the right to make different choices, as long as they extend my family and people like us the very same courtesy. Informed consent and freedom of choice have to apply equally to everyone, even if we vehemently disagree with them.

[UpToSomeGood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peainthepod 

Yes, thank you for this helpful and informative post. I see you addressed none of my points and managed to be condescending at the same time. Nice work!

I addressed any points you raised.  Your post essentially stated that because you disagree with the methodology of some scientific studies, they are not science.  You seem to be confused about the difference between (what you feel to be) bad science, and un-science, junk science, pseudo-science, whatever you'd like to call it.  Science is not infallible; but realizing that does not make it comparable to junk science.  You used some argumentative rhetoric, but didn't present any support for your idea that your opinion is what divides science from non-science, so I thought the link was apropos.  Your reference to vaccine marketing was squarely off topic.

All I'm saying is that some of the anti-vaccination advocates may do more harm for the anti-vaccination cause than good.  I never claimed that you would agree with every scientific study.  (ETA: I don't agree with all of them either.)

Edited by UpToSomeGood - 7/11/11 at 11:43am

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by UpToSomeGood 

Not really.  Pseudo-science is different from science in that it does not depend on (valid) peer review, etc.  We don't really need to argue about the differences between true and false science, do we?  The problem with the CDC et al. is best stated as some misinformation of the public, not reliance on junk science. 

So, for example, when you go to the websites of some anti-vaccination advocates, you will find that they are hawking homeopathic remedies.  This sort of thing makes those particular people an easy target for instant dismissal by someone, and can make it easier to paint ALL the anti-vaccination arguments as nonsense (which they're not).  There's not any mud like that that we can sling at pro-vaxxers.  We can of course point to FLAWS in certain scientific studies, though those studies will tend to be actually scientific.

Another way of looking at it: there's a difference between incorrect science or bad science, and junk science which is not science at all.  You certainly may have some compelling arguments that vaccinations are founded on bad or incorrect or questionable scientific results, but that doesn't mean that vaccinations are based on nothing scientific.

Yes, they can be.  Especially when you throw in the "herd immunity" argument, which is based on a theory.

And the "correlation does not equal causation" BS.  Because to pro-vaxers, that only applies to vaccine reactions and not to disease reduction since the advent of vaccines.

[SilverMoon010]

Originally Posted by peainthepod 

I try to give other people the benefit of the doubt in this area. I'm sure there are parents who don't research and just make a gut decision not to vaccinate, and I'm sure there are parents who don't research and make the popular or advised decision to vaccinate, but I try not to assume that of anyone because I don't want to resort to the sort of "You're too dumb to understand the real science or you'd do what we do!" tactic that is so commonly used against vaccine-free families.

It's definitely possible to read the same studies and books and expert opinions and form your own different conclusions and it probably happens a lot. I have to believe that most vaccinating parents did their research and just happen to disagree, which is their right. I have no problem with (civil) disagreement and the right to make different choices, as long as they extend my family and people like us the very same courtesy. Informed consent and freedom of choice have to apply equally to everyone, even if we vehemently disagree with them.

I hope that's not how my post came across. I wasn't trying to generalize.   I  have no issues with people choosing a different path than I do either.   I just think a lot of people out there blindly follow the advice/guidance of their doctor without researching themselves, which in reality, we should be able to trust fully in our doctors, right? I personally always have to do my own research as I don't trust anyone else's opinions when it comes to my own children so I can't grasp how parents can just follow advice without researching themselves. 

[peainthepod]

Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 

I hope that's not how my post came across. I wasn't trying to generalize.   I just think a lot of people out there blindly follow the advice/guidance of their doctor without researching themselves, which in reality, we should be able to trust fully in our doctors, right? I personally always have to do my own research as I don't trust anyone else's opinions when it comes to my own children so I guess I can't understand how other parents can just go along with their doctors advice without doing the research themselves.  It's good to give people the benefit of the doubt that everyone is doing their research but we know out of all of America and everywhere else that's not the truth. Then again,  maybe I'm just a pessimist

Oh, that's not at all how you came across though I can see by what I wrote why you might understandably think so!  Sorry, mama.

It would have been way more appropriate to say that I try not to start with that assumption because it's a slippery slope to hypocrisy. But I wasn't trying to imply that you do that! And I agree that there must be plenty of people who do go into it blindly because they trust expert opinions (on either side of the issue) or because it's what everyone else does.

[SilverMoon010]

Originally Posted by peainthepod 

Oh, that's not at all how you came across though I can see by what I wrote why you might understandably think so!  Sorry, mama.

It would have been way more appropriate to say that I try not to start with that assumption because it's a slippery slope to hypocrisy. But I wasn't trying to imply that you do that! And I agree that there must be plenty of people who do go into it blindly because they trust expert opinions (on either side of the issue) or because it's what everyone else does

 

  Thank you for that.  I'm a bit hormonal these days  and tend to take things extra personally which is why I have been trying to stay away from here for a while.

[UpToSomeGood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Yes, they can be.

No, that's simply untrue.  Science with which you disagree is still science.

It seems that some of my posts aren't showing up.  Short answer to peainthepod: I amply answered any point you raised.  Your opinion simply isn't the definition of what is scientific. 

[ma2two]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

And the "correlation does not equal causation" BS.  Because to pro-vaxers, that only applies to vaccine reactions and not to disease reduction since the advent of vaccines.

I see that all the time. I've seen people call an immediate, severe vaccine reaction a coincidence, and in the next breath claim that disease reduction, which spans decades, could only be from one thing--vaccines.

[peainthepod]

Originally Posted by UpToSomeGood 

Quote:

No, that's simply untrue.  Science with which you disagree is still science.

It seems that some of my posts aren't showing up.  Short answer to peainthepod: I amply answered any point you raised.  Your opinion simply isn't the definition of what is scientific. 

Decreeing something doesn't make it so, I'm afraid. You'll have to do more than post a link to a Wikipedia article to "amply answer" any of the points raised in this thread.

[chaoticzenmom]

I happen to agree with Uptosomegood's statement that anti-vax sites can harm the anti-vax movement.  I followed a link posted here yesterday and ended up in a horrible, aids denialist, conspiracy filled, sensationalized website.  I did some research on some of the authors of the articles and found that they're often interviewed on two other sites which I find so horrible that I won't mention them.  To me, that gives non-vaxxers a bad name. 

I don't vaccinate ( although I re-address the decision often) and most of my friends don't either and I've never heard mention of these sensationalized sites in our discussions.  They're not the reason we don't vaccinate and most of us see natural-minded physicians who help us decide on vaccines.  Those websites I visited yesterday were just plain frightening...and not because I found validity to their articles.  I usually don't see that kind of stuff on pro-vaccination websites.  They may say dumb things like "a baby could have 1000 vaccines at a time" but it's not really the same. 

[peainthepod]

I guess I just don't find the likes of Paul Offitt and Dr. Amy any more credible than Mercola or even Alex Jones, Rense, et al. It's up to the person doing the research to decide for herself who's credible and who isn't and poisoning the well ("But look what else they advertise/say/publish!") doesn't really sway me. Vaccine-free, as a choice, definitely has a P.R. problem and there are crackpots on the anti-vax side for sure. But I've seen no shortage of pro-vaccine quackery and a whole lot of guilty-by-association mud flinging from vaccine advocates and the corporations that use shocking amounts of money and political influence to sell their products, so it's hard to take the "But crazy people say it too!" argument seriously. A person can be certifiably insane and advertise whatever snake oil they want on their site...and still be right about vaccines. Caveat emptor.

Also I believe Dr. Offitt said a newborn baby could safely receive 10,000 vaccines at once. When offered monetary compensation by vaccine skeptics to accept even a fraction of that number in a single dose himself, he mysteriously declined to respond.

[BeckyBird]

I wonder if some of the radical anti-vax sites that cause harm to the anti-vax movement are actually made by pro-vax supporters, deliberately trying to discredit the anti-vaxxers.

That's why I try to listen to intelligent individuals who have done their research. You need to be skeptical of both mainstream accepted science as well as the conspiracy theorists. Use discernment and decide what You believe is the truth.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by UpToSomeGood 

All I'm saying is that some of the anti-vaccination advocates may do more harm for the anti-vaccination cause than good.  I never claimed that you would agree with every scientific study.

Yes, they do.

I have read on here and elsewhere people say they were turned off not vaccinating by the more zealous anit-vaxxers.  I have on occasion wished people who come across as extremists  would think about how they came across before they posted.  But then I think no - they have the right to share their views and information, even if I think it is questionable.  It is a difficult issue for me to judge.

It is funny this has been brought up as it has been on my mind the last day or two.

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by UpToSomeGood 

Not really.  Pseudo-science is different from science in that it does not depend on (valid) peer review, etc.  We don't really need to argue about the differences between true and false science, do we?  The problem with the CDC et al. is best stated as some misinformation of the public, not reliance on junk science. 

Yes, really. We do not need to argue about the differences between true and false science. But I disagree with your assertion that the CDC is best stated as misinformation of the public. I have major problems with much of their scientific methodology when it comes to testing vaccine safety.

So, for example, when you go to the websites of some anti-vaccination advocates, you will find that they are hawking homeopathic remedies.  This sort of thing makes those particular people an easy target for instant dismissal by someone, and can make it easier to paint ALL the anti-vaccination arguments as nonsense (which they're not).  There's not any mud like that that we can sling at pro-vaxxers.  We can of course point to FLAWS in certain scientific studies, though those studies will tend to be actually scientific.

How is this different than going to WebMD and find that they are advertising every vaccine in the book, Tylenol, and other drugs? Or conflicts of interest between the pharma industry and government officials and the CDC? There is certainly enough mud to sling around.

Another way of looking at it: there's a difference between incorrect science or bad science, and junk science which is not science at all.  You certainly may have some compelling arguments that vaccinations are founded on bad or incorrect or questionable scientific results, but that doesn't mean that vaccinations are based on nothing scientific.

I would also say that there is plenty of scientific evidence pointing to the dangers of vaccines. If you feel there is not, you might be posting in the wrong forum :)

[SilverMoon010]

Originally Posted by peainthepod 

Also I believe Dr. Offitt said a newborn baby could safely receive 10,000 vaccines at once. When offered monetary compensation by vaccine skeptics to accept even a fraction of that number in a single dose himself, he mysteriously declined to respond.

Yes, and that comment by Offit is just incredibly offensive and disrespectful to the parents whose children suffered a severe reaction (or even death) from just ONE vaccine.  Yes, just ONE!

[SilverMoon010]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I have read on here and elsewhere people say they were turned off not vaccinating by the more zealous anit-vaxxers.

This is just silly and a poor excuse.  People should be able to separate those they think have a warped outlook on vaccines to what they truly believe/feel about vaccines themselves.  No one post (or even a multitude of posts) from anti-vaxxers should sway a person one way or the other. Aren't they able to think for themselves and gather their own data and make their own conclusions? If they are easily swayed one way or the other by other people's posts that means they aren't really sure in the first place about their choices. There are surely pushy pro-vaxers out there as well.  I've seen them on all kinds of sites and they don't seem to even know their facts, just spouting out what all the other anti-vax haters spout off because it gives them pleasure for some odd reason.  If I really wanted to vax, their comments wouldn't sway me not to. I would have a mind of my own to make my own decision aside from what others are saying about it.

As mentioned above, it's up to the individual to weed through all the crap out there, both on the non-vaxing and pro-vaxing side because after all it is the internet and there is a bunch of crap out there on both sides. It doesn't mean there aren't legit sites out there either.  The facts are facts about vaccines. Everyone has access to the legit, available information regarding vaccines, the ingredients, the diseases themselves, etc.  The decision on whether to vaccinate or not should first and foremost entail the facts about vaccines.  Knowing everything else is just a bonus.

Edited by SilverMoon010 - 7/11/11 at 12:53pm

[UpToSomeGood]

I'm in agreement that there is evidence that some, perhaps many or all, vaccines are harmful, in the short run or the long run, for individuals and maybe the whole human race.  It's a tricky issue. 

All I meant to point out, without meaning to stir the pot, was that (as aptly put) the anti-vaccination movement has somewhat of a PR issue.  Stupid or not, some people will assume that any anti-vaccination person is a crackpot, due to faulty association with the actual crackpots out there.  It doesn't help when some of the big sites with material on the issue have the wheat mixed in with the chaff.

I think that a lot of the vaccinating people who instantly dismiss anti-vaxxers would tend to be the same ones who are the least informed, who make choices based on their doctor's recommendation and who occasionally hear some pro-vaccination statements while flipping channels, and not much else.  Some of these ill-informed people are bound to work in doctor's offices, school districts, etc.

[chaoticzenmom]

Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 

This is just silly and a poor excuse.  People should be able to separate those they think have a warped outlook on vaccines to what they truly believe/feel about vaccines themselves.  No one post (or even a multitude of posts) from anti-vaxxers should sway a person one way or the other. Aren't they able to think for themselves and gather their own data and make their own conclusions? If they are easily swayed one way or the other by other people's posts that means they aren't really sure in the first place about their choices. There are surely pushy pro-vaxers out there as well.  I've seen them on all kinds of sites and they don't seem to even know their facts, just spouting out what all the other anti-vax haters spout off because it gives them pleasure for some odd reason.  If I really wanted to vax, their comments wouldn't sway me not to. I would have a mind of my own to make my own decision aside from what others are saying about it.

As mentioned above, it's up to the individual to weed through all the crap out there, both on the non-vaxing and pro-vaxing side because after all it is the internet and there is a bunch of crap out there on both sides. It doesn't mean there aren't legit sites out there either.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.  You think it's silly for people who are researching not vaccination to be turned off by the sensationalized websites?  I don't think that's silly at all and it's probably pretty common.  The thing that I like least about being a non-vaccinator is being associated with certain ideals that I don't hold that are often held by non-vaccinators.  I came to not vaccinating because of a pediatrician that I had and because of the ill-health of my own child.  If I had come to it from the angle of "I hear lots of talk about vaccines, let me go online see what non-vaccinators are saying."  I'd have discounted the idea pretty much right off the bat.

[SilverMoon010]

Originally Posted by chaoticzenmom 

I'm not sure what you mean by that.  You think it's silly for people who are researching not vaccination to be turned off by the sensationalized websites?  I don't think that's silly at all and it's probably pretty common.  The thing that I like least about being a non-vaccinator is being associated with certain ideals that I don't hold that are often held by non-vaccinators.  I came to not vaccinating because of a pediatrician that I had and because of the ill-health of my own child.  If I had come to it from the angle of "I hear lots of talk about vaccines, let me go online see what non-vaccinators are saying."  I'd have discounted the idea pretty much right off the bat.

I was saying it's silly for people to base their decisions on what other people say on the Vaccine or I'm Not Vaccinating forums.  I guess I'm not one who is easily influenced by what others say about something. I weigh the facts myself and come to the conclusion as to whether I think it's a good idea or not.  Like I said, people should know enough to be able to weed through what they think is false and what they think is true. For people who may be thinking of not vaccinating, then research a bit, get totally turned off by certain websites,  and then get so-called "pushed" into the arms of vaccination just doesn't make sense to me.  What are they basing their research on to begin with? Google?

There is sensationalization everywhere (again from both sides, not just not vaccinating side) and if we aren't able to look past some of it, then we're all in trouble!

Edited by SilverMoon010 - 7/11/11 at 1:16pm

[chaoticzenmom]

It's not because of what people on forums are saying, it's because of following the links that some people provide as evidence supporting thier beliefs.  When I post links, I really try to keep that in mind.  Is the news from a reputable source? What other positions does this website support?  A person who is new to the idea of not vaccinating, who follows a link to these sites will likely think that all or most people who reject vaccines use these sites as thier source of education about vaccines.  That alone is enough for some people to reject the idea.